SOME GEOGRAPHICAL ASPECTS OF THE PRESENT EUROPEAN

E

WAR

UROPE has been in a state of unstable equilibrium for centuries. Many boundary lines between European nations are purely arbitrary; they were fixed as the result of wars in which the loser was forced to accept such terms as the victor would grant; but such boundaries are seldom regarded as final by the losing nation, nor are they likely to prove permanent, since they are determined by no natural cause.

As long as English kings attempted to hold territory in France, there was constant trouble, centuries of warfare. When the United Kingdom came to be limited by the natural boundaries which now define it, France and Britain were in position to become friendly. Old animosities were not immediately forgotten but since the chief cause of their existence, unsatisfactory boundary adjustments, had largely disappeared, it was only a matter of time when the two old enemies might become friendly. In the Crimean War they fought on the same side, and Great Britain entered the present war largely to aid her ally, France, once her hated enemy. The state of tension which has existed between Germany and France since the Franco-Prussian War was the result of the taking of Alsace-Lorraine, and thereby the establishment of a boundary line unsatisfactory to one power. If a range of mountains such as the Pyrenees or a body of water such as the English Channel had been available as a boundary between France and Germany, it would, by force of its appropriateness, have been accepted, in course of time, by both nations.

The present war began in the Balkans. For a generation or two, it has been evident that the Balkans are a Prince Rupert's Drop, a region in a state of tension because every boundary line in the peninsula was drawn more or less arbitrarily, and was forced upon the several countries by outside powers; since few of the boundaries have any natural cause, few of them have been accepted as final by the nations concerned. Moreover, the mountainous character of the peninsula and its geographical position in the southeast of Europe have made it a refuge for a variety of races, none too friendly under any conditions, but kept from an easy and friendly intermingling through the difficulties presented by the physical features of the peninsula. Had the Balkan. peninsula been part of the Russian plain, it is quite likely that the various races would have mingled and to a degree, amalgamated and that they would have been absorbed into the Russian Empire just as other parts of the plain were. Much of the tension which has long existed in Europe has arisen from the determination of certain European powers to force upon other countries unnatural and unacceptable boundaries. If the Ottoman Empire has any appropriate boundary, it is not the absurd one arbitrarily determined by the Powers at the close of the late Balkan War, but it is that boundary which has long been accepted as the separating line between Europe and Asia. No

THE

THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT

By Robert M. Brown

Rhode Island Normal School, Providence

HE discussions over the minimum requirement in geography have brought to light two classes of advocates: those who believe that all the geography work of the grades can be included in a list of places and conditions and those who believe that such a list represents merely the basis for the work in geography. There is a tendency among certain groups of school managers to emphasize the necessity of a minimum requirement, and inasmuch as the signs indicate in some cases an advocacy of a printed list of facts with little or no attention to the educational advantages of correlating the items or drawing deductions therefrom, it seems wise to continue a line of thought which this Journal has presented at various times during the last few years.

Notwithstanding all that has been written and spoken, there is a large group of teachers who agree passively to the newer methods of presenting geography yet who nevertheless have not been able to make it a part of their practice, but on the contrary, mostly because of lack of light, are actively engaged in the teaching of the subject on the memoriter plan. To such a group, a list representing the minimum requirement would act as a deterrent. to progress and inevitably the teacher would become the slave of the printed course. It is not going beyond the pale of truth to assert that in many instances directors of educational thought are responsible for this either unintentionally because they have not realized the existence of the evil or intentionally by open advocacy of the memoriter plan of teaching geography.

The stimulus to this paper is a letter from a school superintendent, in Massachusetts. In the letter it was stated that a minimum requirement list. for teachers would be issued during the next school year and contributions of lists or of information were solicited. Furthermore, the inference was made that the whole course was to be assigned so that the teachers would know exactly what facts should be taught in their grades. Apparently there was no room for any other phase of the teacher's art save drill. Geographers will not deny that drill is necessary although in reality it represents but a small share of the teacher's work in the subject. It is the beginning, the basis of geography teaching; it is an essential for true geography work. The number of facts which ought to form the foundation of this drill must be sufficient to yield a skeleton or framework. Such a list Professor Ridgley publishes in the June, 1914, issue of the Journal of Geography. It is not at this stage a wise plan to bicker over items of the list; it is better to welcome it as suggestive of the trend of the times, and, in lieu of no other, it can be adopted with safety. But, to repeat one of Professor Ridgley's sentences, "place geography is only a phase of the larger field of geography, and must not be set up as an end in itself."

Another Massachusetts Superintendent of Schools has issued minimum essentials in geography. The sheets on South America, two in number, contain a map of the continent with letters at the locations of the large cities and numbers at other points. The first paper is a study and drill paper and contains about 130 statements with blanks to fill in, thus: "The great grazing and agricultural country at 8 is.... "The largest country of S. A., large as U. S., is.....

at.

The second paper is for a written test and follows the same plan: "The ocean west of South America is the... "The river flowing into....

...

at 5 is the.

"

Here the emphasis is laid on drill in order to gain, apparently, a knowledge of a number of facts. Any further plan of the author is not revealed and the sheets give every evidence of emphasizing as the end of geography a knowledge of unrelated items. If geography can be compassed by a minimum requirement alone, 371 place names for instance, then efficiency experts will say that five or four years of geography is a great waste of time. But geography has a larger and more important mission. It is necessary to know places; no one has denied it, although many people have misinterpreted the geographers stand in the matter. It is very likely true also that the geographer possessed with the belief that relationships and responses were after all the essentials has neglected to state his position concerning place geography. Certain it is that the old geography placed the wrong emphasis on locations. The plan of very many places carelessly taught did show the futility of the cramming process and now a better knowledge of the scope and goal of the subject reveals the way out.

The minimum requirement list is the static phase of geography. The larger and much more important part is the dynamic phase and it is this. latter side which cannot be assigned in any very definite way as yet. The usual examination in geography is a test of place, or static, geography and rarely does a question in dynamic geography creep in. All the work in any minimum requirement list yet published can be done in one-fourth of the time assigned to geography and unless the teacher spends the remaining threefourths on teaching the value and use of the facts presented she wastes time or is guilty of the offences of the older geography-teaching.

That work in dynamic geography presents difficulties cannot be denied; it does not lend itself easily to the present plan of testing; it demands more initiative on the part of the teachers and, although it has been the subject of repeated discussions, there are comparatively few places convenient to the mass of teachers where it is actually in practice. But its advantages far outweigh the disadvantages and no true teacher, after she has struggled through and mastered the science of dynamic geography, will ever be content again to teach place geography alone. The easiest approach to this is by problems which make use of the items of the minimum requirement list. For example, the

common practice of teaching the rainfall of each continent as a fact subject adds a great array of confusing data to the stock in hand. On the other hand if the various reasons for rainfall are considered, such as windward and leeward sides of mountains, wind belts, their migrations and the like, then when the facts of location are known, the distribution of precipitation becomes an example to be solved. This process has a double value; first, if problems are presented which can be solved only by knowing the facts about a country an incentive is offered for learning the facts carefully and, second, it teaches the children how to make use of their knowledge and this, after all, is the main reason for keeping school.

While it is possible to indicate the general line of procedure in dynamic geography the actual desiderata can not be so definitely listed as can the facts of place geography and moreover it is not altogether desirable to do so, for the teacher must in the long run be more than a task master. Type presentations in regional geography have illustrated for the teacher a pathway but as yet regional geography in its fuller aspect, finds little place in the grade schools. The allied branch of economic geography also offers a large field for the teacher who understands the principles of the subject. In either sub-division an inventive teacher may find innumerable problems which will give the breath of life to the geography lesson.

Therefore the publishers of minimum requirement lists in geography ought to state definitely their point of view. If they believe that a list of place names only should form the geographic equipment of their charges, one of two things is necessary, either to make the list very long in order to cover the time allotted to geography in the grades and thereby revert to the errors of earlier teaching or, if the list is a reasonable one, to cut down the time requirement. Then let them turn to some of our recent books on education and see how insufficiently the task which has been set meets the requirements of the ends of education. If, on the other hand, the list of place names is supposed to be the basis merely of dynamic geography the teacher must be made to understand that while perfection in the items is required, time must not be wasted in the achievements of memory alone. Then, directors can concentrate their attention on the formulation of courses of study which will suggest the true nature and scope of geography. With so little attention paid to the dynamic side and therefore so little general experience it is unwise to attempt, even if it could be done, any limits comparable to the minimum requirements of static geography. As time goes on however not only will there be a chance for choice but definite ways of testing the capacity of the pupils and the efficiency of the teaching will be revealed. At all events those who have liked the sound of the minimum requirement suggestion or have been infatuated by the efficiency doctrines should understand the full meaning of the movement in any particular branch before attempting reforms, lest disaster overtake them.